Hi,
On 27/07/2023 20:35, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2023, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 26.07.2023 23:49, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2023, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 26.07.2023 08:42, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
On 26/07/23 08:34, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 25.07.2023 22:45, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
Rule 5.3 has the following headline:
"An identifier declared in an inner scope shall not hide an
identifier declared in an outer scope"
To avoid any confusion resulting from the parameter 'debug'
hiding the homonymous function declared at
'xen/arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h:428'
the rename of parameters s/debug/lkdbg/ is performed.
Signed-off-by: Nicola Vetrini <[email protected]>
---
Changes in v2:
- s/dbg/lkdbg/
Changes in v3:
- Added missing renames for consistency
Hmm, you asked whether to send v3, but then you didn't wait for an
answer. So to repeat what I said there: I'd prefer if we could first
settle whether to rename the conflicting x86 symbol.
Stefano replied asking for a v3 [1] before I had a chance to read your
message this morning.
Right, sorry, I spotted his reply only after seeing the v3.
For what is worth I prefer the current implementation compared to
renaming debug()
I don't. My replacement name suggestions were only "just in case"; I
don't really like them.
Understood :-)
How would you like to proceed?
1. we commit this patch as is
2. we wait for a third opinion from another maintainer
3. we find a new name for the variable
4. we change debug() instead
IMO, the name debug() is quite generic and it is not obvious that the
function is a trap handler. So I think renaming debug() is the right way
to go.
Cheers,
--
Julien Grall
